Recent orders
Democracy plays a very pivotal role in the governance of a country
Introduction
Democracy plays a very pivotal role in the governance of a country. Such kind of governance may be initiated by the citizens or by their representatives whom they have elected. At the outset, democracy provides a suitable system of governance where different calibre of people coexists despite their class, gender, origin, ethnicity, religion and culture among other affiliations. The more striking aspect of democracy is the provision of political freedom to the citizens in a country given the fact that majority dictates what is good for them. In essence, the civil rights of people is upheld and respected. However, democracy should be coiled with elaborate institutional framework as the majority who has the say can abuse such privileges and oppress the minority group within their area of jurisdiction. Different countries have varied degree of democracy given their status of civilization hence the variability in the freedom enjoyed by their citizens. In highly democratic states, citizens enjoy a variety of freedom including freedom of speech, association and assembly among other freedom issues. It is however, worth noting that coiling democracy with other values such as trust enhances the positive coexistence of different people within same environmental setting. This paper therefore examines the relationship of democracy and the social values by comparing and contrasting nations that have different degree of freedom.
To begin with, political freedom is one such important factor in a society that everyone is willing to benefit from. It is however dependent on the mode of governance and the legal as well as political framework existing in a state that guides such governance approaches. Different nations have varied degree of freedom brought about by the levels of democracy practiced within a nation. Some states such as France and Germany have high freedom rates while other nations such as Iraq and Iran enjoy little freedom. The first two states were democratically established a long time ago unlike the latter two countries which have had their struggle for democratic space for a short period of time notably after the disintegration of communist bigwigs. Varieties of values are correlated to democracy in many ways and are therefore important in upholding the democratic space within a nation. It is therefore important to examine the various values, beliefs and attitudes that are have tried to shape up the democratic systems in the aforementioned countries. It is partly true though majorly hypothetical that the post-communist states of Iran and Iraq have to undergo a long and challenging task in an attempt to gain democratic stability currently enjoyed by Germany and France. The choice of the aforementioned countries was based on the fact that these nations share some things in common such as culture and religion. For instance, Iran and Iraq are Islamic nations while France and Germany are Christian-based States.
The procedure of democratization is affected by a variety of social issues including religion, tradition, and emphasis of education among others which shapes up the social values and beliefs which in turn affects the behavior of the populace. To begin with, Germany and France are predominantly Catholic territories even though East Germany is occupied mainly by the Protestants. Iraq and Iran on the other hand are strongholds of Islamic religion. The values and beliefs of the two cliques of countries are sharply different. As Germany and France campaign for the respect and upholding of individual human rights of each and everyone in their country, Iraq and Iran on the other hand lobby for the elevation of group ideals and the subsequent handling of individual or personal issues as secondary in priority. According to the Islam religion, the ethics and virtues of the believers emphasize the support an individual is supposed to offer to his/her group and not putting his personal needs a head of the group’s needs. This has negative impact on democratic practices lobbied by the western countries that requires that individual human rights be respected. Besides, Islamic religion has other beliefs and values that hamper the process of democratization. To begin with, the issues concerning of morals are highly demanding according to the Islamic teaching unlike Christianity practiced in Germany and France. According to the Confucian morals churches give answers to all the moral problems an individual faces. The World Values Survey provides statistics where 64.3% and 77.3% of respondents in Iran and Iraq respectively supported the idea compared to 42.6% of similar respondents in Germany. 35.7% and 22.7% of the respondents in Iran and Iraq opposed the idea as 54.7% of the German respondents believed that churches do not offer solutions to moral problems.
Moreover, the rule of virtue and not the rule of law are prominent in the two Islamic countries of Iran and Iraq as opposed to Germany and France which enforces the latter. According to Muslims, individuals are supposed to define their interest in the interest of where they come from and not their personal interest. In essence, in politics and governance, there are no basic human rights in Iraq and Iran but the rights of community as a whole. This is in contrast with the two secular countries of France and Germany where civil human rights is respected. Democracy is deeply rooted in the rule of law and provides an environment for the upholding of human rights. The Islamic value that campaigns for the primacy of group over individual interest may be a factor derailing the democratization process in Iraq and Iran compared to Germany and France which have well established democratic processes.
Besides, the Confucian morality stipulates that the relationship between an individual and his/her parents are based on loyalty as well as filial piety unlike contracts or mutual benefits as witnessed in the pro-western countries. According to the Confucian morality individuals are judged by the honor and benefit they have brought to the family as the latter forms the basic facet of governance in Iraq and Iran. However, this is greatly different with Germany and France’s moral beliefs where an individual is entitled to be independent and therefore guided by personal liberty. He makes his own decisions and therefore does what he deems necessary. According to the statistics, 86.4 % of the French, 93.8 % Iranians, 96.1 % Iraqis as well as 81.8 % German believed that family was very important in day to day life. Democracy requires that on be is left to make his own choice in a free world. Individuals are required to accountable to what they do as individuals not as a group. The important moral goods encompass independence, individual rights, freedom, as well as self-determination.
The Confucian morality also presents a hierarchical form of relations in a Muslim family. It argues that the siblings should respect any decision made by the parents particularly by the father. The children are bound to respect this without questioning such decisions no matter how wrong they might prove to be. This is in contrast to the pro-western constitutions which enable the son to criticize apparent and disregard a decision when he feels that it has been wrongly made. Democracy provides for freedom of speech and that everyone with a sound mind should be allowed to criticize any decisions by anybody that the individual is uncomfortable with.
Furthermore, emphasis on education is another vital social value affecting the democratization process in a given nation. To begin with, the pro-west countries of Germany and France introduced education long time ago compared to Iran and Iraq which initiated such similar programs after communism had been overthrown hardly ten years ago. For instance, statistics retrieved from the world values survey provides highlights on an initiative of primary education established by Germany. According to the survey, 51.1% give the initiative top priority while 34.5% gives it high priority, 12.3% and 2.1% prioritizes the project as medium and low respectively. Other data are actually missing. Besides, gender equality should also be considered while offering educational services to the citizens. Responses on the whether university is more important to a boy then a girl demonstrated how Iran and Iraq despised undermined girl child education compared with Germany and France. According to the statistics, 13.8% strongly oppose the idea of elevating boys at the expense girl education while 13.3% strongly agree with the idea. 27.1% strongly oppose the idea in Iraq while 24.8% strongly agree with the idea. On the other hand, Germany and France presents sharply contrasting data results. In Germany, 49.3% strongly disagree that university is more important to a boy than a girl and 3.1% strongly agree with the idea. France presents even stronger data results in opposition of the idea. 73.1% strongly disagree while 1.8% strongly agrees. For any state to claim efficient democratization, subjecting its populace to education procedures is a fundamental aspect in the process. Education is vital for the democratic life of students as they can now to think critically, be efficient, and participate in all political spheres through engagement in lobbying, voting as well as involvement in decision-making processes. Issues of gender are also vital in the democratization process.
Besides, egalitarianism is another vital social value that can also be used in the comparison of the four countries in respect to democracy. Egalitarianism entails the belief on the equality of human beings concerning issues of economic, political as well as social factors. At the outset, democracy provides a foundation for the facilitation of equality in all the aforementioned spheres. Equality has been campaigned for by a variety of human groups as well as some state governments in the western region. Christian-based countries such as Germany and France encourage equality on the issues raised above by citing the bible that everyone is equal before God. Such equality is important in the democratic space where everyone is accorded equal opportunity so as to be productive. However, equality is highly disputed by Muslims world they undermine women in many occasions. This is exemplified in Iran and Iraq where men are elevated above women in many instances. For instance, a question was asked concerning the performance of women compared to men in the position of company executive. The responses were not surprising. French respondents disagreed strongly with the idea that women would make good chief executive compared to men.54.8% strongly agreed while 2.2% strongly opposed the idea. Germany had 44.8% respondents strongly disagreeing with idea as 3.0 strongly agreeing. On the other hand, Iran strongly agreed recording 20.7% followed by strong disagreement with the idea at 5.3%.
Table
EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 s
Political system and Justice are also other important aspect of democratization process. To begin with, fairness in the offer of judgment is very vital in any civilized society. In respect to the four countries of France, Germany, Iran as well as Iraq, equal justice to all people is a vital component of attaining democracy in a country. Political system on the other hand provides a framework as well as guideline that would control all the political activities. Different countries have different political system in their government. For instance, some countries have systems that have democratic system. World Value Survey presents such analysis as used in the four nation’s analysis. The data presented are more or less similar in trend. For instance, Germany is rated at 56.7% as very good but at 1.0% as very bad political system. This is the highest score that insinuates that has political system with very goods political system with democratic political system. The table below summarizes all the data pertaining to the four nations. Iraq for instance had a very good score of 54.8% with the very bad score of 3.7%. Sound political system is the basis to the governance needed in the modern democratic world.
Table
EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 s
Social trust is another equally important social value that has close relationship with democracy. To begin with, social trust entails the ability of a person or a group of people to embrace another stranger(s) in his/their midst. When people can have such behavior and attitude to accommodate other people no matter the differences in origin, class, ethnicity, religion or race, then harmony and unity can be effectively achieved. It is believed that people with trust are active and always connected to other people be they families or just friends. In the process, they try to uphold and maintain the positive character trait so as to sustain the friendship. It is more important to stay connected to other people so that an individual’s mistake or undoing is corrected. If such an action is not pursued one may end up getting used to the wrongs he/she has been committing.
Trust is however affected by a variety of factors. Firstly, the prevailing political and economic climate in a country has an impact on the trust on other people or certain things such as media, health care and education among others. The trust on a given political view in a media such as press is highly relevant to democracy in a state. Such trust ensures that we are in a position to accommodate other people’s ideas and opinions concerning pertinent issues of politics. It is however, worth mentioning that the confidence in press has deteriorated in France as statistics show that only 2.1% have trust in the press but 19.1% do not have trust at all. This is almost similar in Germany where 2.1% are known to have trust in the press but 15.8% lacks the trust in the press. Unlike the aforementioned statistics of the two pro-western countries, Iran presents a different scenario. In this survey results, 5.1% do not have trust in the press while 8.4% have trust in the press.
Table EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 s
Even though social trust is not in many instances associated with the usual set of economic, social as well as political variables including gender, age, education, income, race, and employment, it is sometimes found in some of the aforementioned social categories. It is always associated with high status, high education as well as high income and is therefore more likely to be exhibited among the middle aged men and women and the psychologically satisfied individuals in respect to their jobs or general lifestyle.
It is noteworthy that trust has a close relationship with the democratization process. The ability of an individual to embrace a stranger within his midst despite differences in class, religion, ethnicity, race or culture is an encouraging undertaking since it ensures that unity and harmony prevails. The occurrence of social trust among people in a society contributes to certain aspects of solidarity, productive cooperation as well as peaceful coexistence and stable relations which are suitable for the nourishment of democracy. Democracy is known to prevail in such aforementioned environments as peace and harmony.
Generally, the difference witnessed between the four discussed countries is partly dependent on time factor when democracy was established in the aforementioned nations as well as the differences in the social values of the Asian countries from those of the pro-western. For instance, Germany and France had established the democratization process long ago before Iran and Iraq which are in still the process of establishing democracy following the fall of communism. France and Germany established liberal democracy many years back and have therefore positioned themselves in vantage points as far as political freedom is concerned. Their citizens enjoy the fruits of freedom as well as respect for human rights. Iran and Iraq on the other hand are still on the verge of trying to integrate the native Confucian value of the East Asia in an attempt to enhance democratization process. They lack freedom of expression and still engage in violations of civil rights.
Conclusion
As mentioned above, democracy is a fundamental aspect in good governance of any nation. Sound democratic practices employed by those in power ensure a suitable environment characterized by high degree of freedom. Democratization process may be initiated by the leaders themselves or compelled by elected people. The aspect of democracy is related in one way or another to a number of social values including morality, tradition, culture, social trust, and education among other values. The above discussed nations have demonstrated sharp differences in various aspects of the social values according to the world value survey. For instance, such sharp contrast has been witnessed in the issue related to gender and education. The pro-western countries of France and Germany strongly oppose the idea that university is more important to boy than girl as supported by Iran as well as Iraq. Countries such as France and Germany had long time ago established democratically compared to Iran and Iraq which are developing their democratic process after the fall of communism. It is therefore noteworthy that the social values associated with democracy would be developed at a similar slower pace as the democratic process. Finally, a democratic process, practice as well as institution should ensure high quality public policy that is in the interest of the public.
-914400-5913755
Democracy is overrated
Democracy is overrated
Democracy is overrated
Although different institutions define democracy variedly, the fundamentals of this concept relate to government by the people through elected representatives. In other aspects, issues considered entail direct and indirect citizen political involvement, fairness, and prevalence of the rule of law. Idyllically, a democracy should ensure that all citizens have equal opportunities and access to national resources. Nonetheless, this is often not the case. Despite many governments and institutions portraying perfect democracies, this concept stands overrated because numerous ills that contravene social equality occur. These include flawed elections, majoritarianism, unfavorable safeguards and restrictions, and oppression.
One of the most ideal perspectives of democracy is based on the idea of ‘the will of the people’ (Mueller, 2001). As explained by Iversen (2005), this will is commonly found in elective processes across the world. When major democracies conduct elections every four or five years, there is a common belief that the processes are free and fair. Thus, the governments elected are ‘for the people, by the people’ (Mueller, 2001). However, an explanation by Iversen (2005) indicated that this is not the case. In underdeveloped countries, large fractions of the electorate are neither learned nor informed. Despite prevalent poor governance and underdevelopment, most politicians visit such persons in the eve of elections with handouts and gifts to woo their votes. After elections, the politicians fail to address major societal issues and emerge with handouts again after four years. Furthermore, the electorate has been customized to believe that the more flamboyant and colorful one’s campaign is, the better their ability to serve. To an extent, elections remain a contest of the rich. In other cases, candidates draw resources from friends who expect favors related to tenders and business policies if their candidates win. All these demean the original ideals of true democracy.
Another point worth considering is the relationship between minority and majority groups in elections. Many political parties and groups are aware of the fact that all bills and policies in parliaments are passed by majority votes. As a result, McDermott (2010) explained that political systems manipulate elections to ensure that they have majority memberships in legislative bodies. The implication of this is that they cannot lose anytime they intend to pass a law. Considerably, this moves the case from democracy to majoritarianism. This is because such a system could even deprive the minority of basic needs and still find the process democratic. According to Iversen (2005), the most common victim of this provision is the press. Because media institutions report on political ills, there have been many occasions across the world where parliaments have passed laws to bar the press from visiting parliament or performing other functions.
In its design, democracy provides numerous security measures and safeguards. These are entrenched in constitutions and relate to electoral processes, judicial procedures, individual rights and freedoms, and political representation. Miroff, Seidelman, and Swanstrom (1999) pointed out two examples that make such safeguards the breaking point of true democracy. The first rule is that a president must be elected by majority vote. In the event that an election is held and less than seventy percent turnout is achieved, fifty one percent of this attendance does not make up forty percent of the total population. It would imply that a decision made by approximately thirty percent is used to govern the rest. Although it is democratically correct, it is not ideal. Again, safeguards would bar the electorate from giving a hard working successful candidate a third term if the constitution restricts such.
The notion of democracy stands out as one of the most overrated ideas across the world. Globally, one of the ways of assessing the extent of democracy in a country is through elections. However, elections have numerous faults that make them flawed. Furthermore, many elected governments embezzle public funds and oppress minorities. Additionally, various safeguards introduced to ensure democratic success may sometimes turn around and hinder democracy in other ways. In general, the ideals of democracy are appealing. However, most systems that subscribe to democracy never practice these ideals.
References
Iversen, T. (2005). Capitalism, Democracy, and Welfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
McDermott, J. F. M. (2010). Restoring Democracy to America: How to Free Markets and Politics from the Corporate Culture of Business and Government. University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.
Miroff, B., Seidelman, R., & Swanstrom, T. (1999). Debating Democracy: A Reader in American Politics. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Mueller, J. E. (2001). Capitalism, Democracy and Ralph’s Pretty Good Grocery. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.
Democracy In The Middle East
Democracy In The Middle East
Democracy
A lot of confusion and uncertainties have occurred when people have been have been called upon to explain what the term ‘democracy’ was. Some of the reasons behind the existing uncertainties have been linked to the many undeniable flaws and forms that the term has become to be associated with. The term democracy remains meaningful even though its manifestations in various cultures and times may differ in significant respects (Wood 2004, p.3). In helping us understand better the meaning of democracy, this paper goes an extra mile to analyse the various secondary literatures that addressed the meaning of this term. A conclusive interpretation of the term is then provided at the end of the analysis.
The word democracy originated from two Greek words; “demos” referring to “people” and “kratein” referring to “govern” or to “rule”. In reference to its components, Becker and Raveloson (2008) gave the literal definition of democracy as government of the people or government of the majority (p.4). The two scholars note that Abraham Lincoln’s widely adopted definition of democracy traced its source from this literal meaning. According to Lincoln ((1809-1865)) democracy was defined as the government of the people, by the people and for the people. To help us understand Abraham Lincoln’s definition of democracy, Becker and Raveloson (2008) expounded Lincoln’s definition as incorporating 3 broad subjects: a government that comes from the people; a government that is exercised by the people, and for the peoples’ own rights (p.6). Ressler (2009) introduced another dimension to the understanding of the term democracy when he argued that in asking what democracy was, one was relating 2 conditions of the current parliamentary representative democracies and the different approaches to what a more democratic system ought to resemble and the type of organizational forms it could take.
On its part, The US Department of State (2008) basically defined democracy as a government in which the Supreme power was vested in the people. To them, democracy was exercised through large societies electing their representatives. According to this department, the word democracy has been synonymously interchanged with freedom, though this should not be the case. In highlighting the difference between the two confusing words, The US Department of State (2008) noted that democracy was the superior term amongst the two since other than consisting of a set of ideas and principles about freedom; it also consisted of practices and procedures that had been modelled through a long, often tortuous history. Kolar (2005) went ahead to stress that democracy meant that all the people in a state ought to have a say in one way or another in everything that affected their lives. Drawing from Kolar’s thinking, democracy can only be considered as being representative if the elected representatives regularly consult their electorates before making commitments to matters that affect their lives.
From Hilla University’s Lecture for Humanistic Studies (2004), democracy was defined in terms of 4 key elements that included: a political system for choosing and replacing governments through free and fair elections, the active participation of people, as citizens, in politics and civic life, protection of human rights of all citizens and a rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. Wood (2004) in trying to come up with an all encompassing definition for what democracy was, went on to list the key characteristics upon which a state can be taken to be upholding democratic principles. The listed characteristics of a democratic state are that elections are open to participation to all citizens; each vote is of equal value, voters have real or free choices, citizens have an open access to information and the availability of a rule of law that guarantees freedom to the citizens (Wood 2004, p.2). From Wood’s research, democracy should be considered as manifesting one of the most adored fundamental aspiration in human species; the aspiration for freedom.
To Pilkington (1997), the definition of democracy must incorporate the concepts of government by consent and the popular consent of lending legitimacy to the government rather than the mechanics of how the people as a whole can be involved in a participatory sense (p.5). From his works, it is clear that ‘true’ or ‘direct’ democracy should envisage a legislative and governmental process that involves all society members. In addition, Woolf (2009) looked at democracy as a system by which nations were governed (p.4). In line with his study, the following can be identified as the major components upon which the success or failure of democracy be assessed in a state: legislatures, executives, judiciaries, electoral systems, pressure groups and the media (Woolf 2009, p.22-27). Though ‘pure’ democracy calls for the people to regularly attend meetings to discuss issues that affect them mostly in small groups, Woolf (2009) notes that this is impractical in today’s world because of the millions of peoples who have accustomed themselves with details of every political issue in their countries (p.5).
Democracy in the Middle East
In analyzing the introduction of democracy into the Middle East region, it is vital if we begun by first defining what colonialism stands for. Colonialism, in earlier times, was defined as a historic phenomena supported by the notion that certain territories and people require and beseech denominations, as well as forms of knowledge affiliated with denominations (Page 2003, p.496). However, the current definition of colonialism simply states that, “colonialism is marked by a state’s successful claim to sovereignty over a foreign land” (Mahoney 2010, p.2).
The Muslim World has had a long history of authoritarianism, tribal, religious and cultural sectarianism (Ben-Meir 2006). Until recently, experts had noted that the level of transforming political institutions across Middle East regions had not looked promising. Most countries in the region were faced with obstinate domestic and external obstacles that made adoption of democracy to seem like a distant dream (Brown & Shahin 2009, p.3). Paths to political transitions were away from obvious, and the commitment of key persons or actors to practical realities of democracy that existed at those times would have provided a lot of room for questioning. However, the democratic situation across many Middle East countries has been gradually changing thus providing signs of hope that the region might eventually become fully democratised. Current Middle East states where democracy has been slightly embraced include: Israel (the leading Islamic nation to embrace democracy), Iraq, Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain amongst others. The reasons behind the introduction of democracy in these states have been varying from many experts and scholars. This paper therefore goes ahead to analyze the different views as adopted across the world over widely adopted claims of whether the colonialists were behind the current introduction of democracy across the Middle East Region.
Though there have been lingering questions on whether democracy was introduced in these states by colonialists, it should be clearly be stated that it wasn’t. The British and French colonialists suppressed national movements within the colonized Middle East states (Alkady 2004, p.38).In fact, throughout the Arab world, the colonial forces suppressed nationalist movements and attempts to hold democratic elections (Valkins 2011). This, according to principles of pure democracy, this suppresses and limits the growth and development of democracy.
Many non-Muslim nations agree that Western neo-colonialists, led by the USA, should be credited for having initiated measures that went in great length in promoting democracy across the regions; though many Muslims have not bought into this notion.
The US Government came to embrace the introduction of democracy across the
Middle East when the Bush Administration officials came to reject the idea that authoritarian Arab regimes constituted the bulwark against Islamic radicalism in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks (CRS Report for Congress 2006, p.5). The CRS Report for Congress (2006) goes ahead to stress that US’s change of heart to embrace the idea of democratizing the Middle East was the main reason behind the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq, a Middle East country whose citizens had never seen the signs of political “freedom”. In embracing democracy across the region, it is highlighted that active combat phases in the Middle East region by the USA were followed with “A Forward Strategy of Freedom in the Middle East” (CRS Report for Congress 2006, p.5). According to the Tschirigi, (2007)the following excerpts taken from the former US Presidents speech of November 5, 2003 emphasized the facilitation role at which colonialists greatly contributed in introducing democracy across the Middle East. The former US president, Mr. Bush, was eluded to have said that, “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export.” (Tschirigi 2007, p.39).
Many scholars have referred to the above statement as having been the turning point in embracing democracy across the Middle East. For instance, David and Gondin (2006, p.129) confirmed to this view when he postulated that although Bush had alluded to the need for developing democracy in Arab States since 2002, his elements in the speech affirmed to his intentions. Amongst the deductions made from the elements in his speech was that Islam and democracy were no longer incompatible and that it was wrong for Western Nations to have previously favoured the flourishing of stability in the Middle East at the expense of freedom (David and Gondin 2006, p.129). On his part, Sterba (2009), in justifying the strong implication the speech had on the adoption of democracy in the Middle East, had gone on to laud the speech as a new policy-a forward strategy of freedom that emphasized or resembled the same persistence, energy and idealism as in Europe, Asia and every region of the world where democracy had been successfully adopted.
However, the USA strategy of invading some Middle East nations in the name of embracing democracy had also received critiques from some sections of the community who held different views. For instance, according to Sterba (2009, p.585), the obvious reason for invading Middle East countries of Iraq and Afghanistan was majorly to benefit from the many energy resources available in the regions. Moreover, Tschirigi (2007, p.39-40) in critiquing the US strategy, had gone on to say that Bush had casted doubt on his own optimism when he insisted that while democratic governments reflected their own cultures, they were required to also exhibit common essential principles of rule of law, healthy civic institutions, political parties, labour unions, independent newspapers, religious liberty and rights of women.
To add on that, Ben-Meir (2006) noted that Western nations could not claim responsibility for having introduced democratic reforms in the Middle East since any initiative to introduce democratic reforms in the region involved the full support of gradual reforms, which many Western powers were not ready to adhere to.
In analyzing the principal sources of political liberalization in the Middle East, Sayari and others (1993) unanimously agreed that the process of change in the Middle East’s authoritarian regimes was more heavily influenced by the defensive strategies of incumbent elites than by a groundswell of support for democracy amongst the people in the Middle East. For example, some of the region’s authoritarian leaders and regimes viewed controlled political liberalization and the creation of institutionalized channels through parliaments, elections and parties as a means of overcoming the mounting crisis of legitimacy that they faced (Sayari et al. 1993, p.4). As such, they embraced democracy when they allowed some few representative processes and institutions to provide outlets upon which Muslim people expressed their popular discontent and grievances. This was done without endangering the regimes dominant political roles.
The challenge that was posed by the Islamic fundamental movements was also reviewed as another principal reason for adoption of political reforms across the Middle East (Hunter 2005, p.193). The emergence of Islamic forces to capitalize on economic and social problems, especially on some grievances of the poor urban people may have also contributed a great deal in introducing democracy in the Middle East. These Islamic forces provided democratic openings when they held governments accountable for their actions. As a result of their increased pressures, authoritarian Middle East regimes decided to incorporate some of the leaders from these Islamic forces into their governments thus providing room for political freedom hence democracy.
Conclusion
In conclusion, though the “full” definition of democracy continues to be elusive in the modern society, it should be emphasized that only institutional pre-requisite can help in narrowing down to an identical meaning of the term. These six major institutional prerequisite for ‘full democracy’ are elected officials, free and/or fair frequent elections, alternative sources of information, associational autonomy, inclusive citizenship. The listed prerequisites are expressed in different times by citizens’ in different countries.
It is also vital to note that not all governments that are today considered democratic uphold all these pre-requisites in their systems. As such, it will only be proper if we categorised today’s governments into two categories namely ‘fully democratic’ or ‘partially democratic’. Moreover, it is also important to note that the following constitute the essential conditions that can favour the growth and development of democracy across states. These conditions include the civilian control of police and military institutions, political cultures that are democratic and the absence of foreign power interventions.
From the research above, it clearly emerged that democracy, though still in its raw stages in the Middle East, was, to a small extend, introduced by what we may refer to neo-colonialism by Western powers, USA constituting the major source. Other factors that facilitated introduction of democracy in these states have been the formation of Islamic forces and pressure movements.
References
Alkadry, M., 2004. Colonialism in a postmodern age: The West, Arabs and “the battle of Baghdad”. [online] (Updated 9 Jan 2004) Available at: HYPERLINK “http://www.spaef.com/file.php?id=199” http://www.spaef.com/file.php?id=199 [Accessed 5 April 2011].
Becker, P. & Raveloson, 2008. What is democracy? [print] Hamburg: University of Harmburg.
Ben-Meir, A., 2006. Challenges on the road to democracy in the Middle East (part 1). [online] Available at: http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=53575 [Accessed April 5 2011].
Brown, N.J., & Shahin, E.E., 2009. The struggle over democracy in the Middle East: Regional politics and external policies. [print] New York: Taylor & Francis.
CRS Report for Congress, 2006. US democracy promotion policy in the Middle East: The islamist dilemma. [online] Available at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33486.pdf [Accessed 4 April 2011].
David, C.H., Gondin, D., 2006. Hegemony or empire? The redefinition of US power under George W. Bush. [print] England: Ashgate Publishing.
Hanson, V.D., 2002. Democracy in the Middle East.vol. 8. [Online] Available at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/769bfuqn.asp?page=2 [Accessed 4 April 2011].
Hilla University for Humanistic Studies, 2004. What is democracy? [online] Available at: http://www.stanford.edu/~ldiamond/iraq/WhaIsDemocracy012004.htm [Accessed 04 April 2011].
Hunter, S., 2005. Modernization, democracy and Islam. [print] Washington: ABC-CLIO.
Kolar, M, 2005. What is democracy? [online] Available at: HYPERLINK “http://www.whatisdemocracy.net/” http://www.whatisdemocracy.net/ [Accessed 4 April 2011].
Mahoney, J., 2010. Colonialism and postcolonial development: Spanish America in Comparative Perspective. [print] USA: Cambridge University Press.
Page, M.E., 2003. Colonialism: an international social, cultural, and political encyclopaedia. California: ABC-CLIO.
Pilkington, C., 1997, Representative democracy in Britain today. [Print] Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Ressler, O., 2009. What is democracy? [online] Available at http://www.ressler.at/what_is_democracy_film/ [Accessed 4 April 2011].
Sayari, S., Converse, P.E., & The US National Research Council, 1993. Democratization in the Middle East: trends and prospects: Summary of a workshop, [print] Washington D.C.: National Academies.
Sterba, J. 2009. Ethics: The big questions. 2 ed. [print] USA: Wiley-Blackwell.
The US Department of State, 2008. What is democracy? [online] Available at: http://www.america.gov/st/democracyhr-english/2008/May/20080619223145eaifas0.5311657.html [Accessed 4 April 2011].
Tschirigi, D., 2007. Turning point: the Arab world’s marginalization and international security after 9/11. [Print] USA: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Vaknin, S., The democratic ideal and new colonialism. [online] Available at: HYPERLINK “http://samvak.tripod.com/democracy.html” http://samvak.tripod.com/democracy.html [Accessed 5 April 2011].
Wood, A.T., 2004. Asian democracy in world history. [print] New York: Routledge.
Woolf, A., 2009. Systems of government democracy. [print] UK: Evans Brothers.